When Error Mitigation Makes Things Worse: Budget-Aware Evaluation, Extrapolation Failure, and the Calibration Trust Boundary
Abstract
Error mitigation is expected to turn noisy quantum measurements into more useful estimates. We show that it can instead amplify error. Under control-offset miscalibration, the evaluated unconstrained zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) estimators are worse than no mitigation on 38-63% of simulated instances and produce extreme tail errors. A small IBM Heron study finds worsening on 80-88% of 18 instances across two depths, with mean error 3.0-4.1 times the raw error. In simulation, the median changes little, so median-only monitoring misses the failures. We then compare methods at the same online shot budget per evaluation and report offline training cost separately. After that cost is amortized, a budget-conditioned neural corrector occupies the low-budget end of the simulated accuracy-cost frontier and falls back to the raw estimate when an ensemble disagrees; its hardware transfer remains unsuccessful. Finally, we treat provider-reported calibration as an input that is not bound to the execution-time device state. A white-box projected-gradient stress test on this metadata increases the corrector's error 8.1 times within the feature ranges used for training and evades the disagreement monitor on half of the worsened cases. Together, the results connect budget-aware evaluation, tail risk, and calibration integrity in near-term quantum learning pipelines.
Related
- Error Mitigation by Zero-Noise Extrapolation (ZNE) in Indirect-Control System
- A finite-shot mean-squared-error boundary for Richardson zero-noise extrapolation
- Characterization and Mitigation of Boundary Sampling Artifacts in Electron Phase Space Generation for Clinical FLASH-RT Deployment
- Execution bias, repeatability and mitigation cost in parameter-frozen molecular VQE energy evaluation
- The Quantum Boundary of Black Hole Interiors: Signature Failure and the Termination of Mass Inflation
BibTeX
@misc{zhang2026when,
title = {{When Error Mitigation Makes Things Worse: Budget-Aware Evaluation, Extrapolation Failure, and the Calibration Trust Boundary}},
author = {Guilin Zhang and Kai Zhao and Xiquan Cui and Henry Heng and Xu Chu and Aletta Johanna Blanken},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2609.38713},
eprint = {2609.38713},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38713},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - When Error Mitigation Makes Things Worse: Budget-Aware Evaluation, Extrapolation Failure, and the Calibration Trust Boundary
AU - Guilin Zhang
AU - Kai Zhao
AU - Xiquan Cui
AU - Henry Heng
AU - Xu Chu
AU - Aletta Johanna Blanken
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/30
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2609.38713
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.38713
AB - Error mitigation is expected to turn noisy quantum measurements into more useful estimates. We show that it can instead amplify error. Under control-offset miscalibration, the evaluated unconstrained zero-noise extrapolation (ZNE) estimators are worse than no mitigation on 38-63% of simulated instances and produce extreme tail errors. A small IBM Heron study finds worsening on 80-88% of 18 instances across two depths, with mean error 3.0-4.1 times the raw error. In simulation, the median changes little, so median-only monitoring misses the failures. We then compare methods at the same online shot budget per evaluation and report offline training cost separately. After that cost is amortized, a budget-conditioned neural corrector occupies the low-budget end of the simulated accuracy-cost frontier and falls back to the raw estimate when an ensemble disagrees; its hardware transfer remains unsuccessful. Finally, we treat provider-reported calibration as an input that is not bound to the execution-time device state. A white-box projected-gradient stress test on this metadata increases the corrector's error 8.1 times within the feature ranges used for training and evades the disagreement monitor on half of the worsened cases. Together, the results connect budget-aware evaluation, tail risk, and calibration integrity in near-term quantum learning pipelines.
ER -